Sunday, August 10, 2014

Are Christians persecuted in the United States?

The answer to the titular question is so clearly "no" that I would normally not dignify it with a response. But commenter Publius, who otherwise seems to be reasonable and rational, presented some data to support the proposition that "finding Christian harassment in the past few years is like fishing with dynamite." So I decided to take the time to investigate. After all, it is important to keep an open mind. You never know when one of your prejudices might turn out to be wrong.

Publius cites five primary examples, six secondary examples, and three examples that he characterizes as "vignettes". I looked at every one of these and, unsurprisingly, they do not support the conclusion. Of Publius's fourteen examples, only one is even a legitimate example of harassment of any sort. That is this one:

Remember the University of California, Santa Barbara feminist studies professor who forcibly stole a graphic anti-abortion sign from two abortion protesters, then scratched and appeared to push one of the protesters (a 16-year-old girl), then destroyed the sign?

She pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of grand theft, vandalism and battery on Thursday.

This is clearly a case of harassment (as even the perpetrator has now tacitly admitted). But it is not a case of harassment of Christians. We don't even know for certain that the victims were Christians, at least not from the account that Publius cites. The word "Christian" does not even appear in that story. It might be a good bet that they were Christians (because opponents of reproductive freedom often are) but we don't know that, and it doesn't matter anyway. Even if they were Christians it is clear that they were attacked not because of their religious beliefs but because of the political views they were espousing (not that this makes the attack any less reprehensible). As you will see, this will prove to be a common theme.

As revealed in the disturbing video, two Christian street preachers stood near a gay pride march, one holding a large sign and the other one clutching a Bible.

The sign did not make any targeted, inflammatory statements against any particular group.

But several of the marchers did not care.

A heavy-set man and a woman broke off from the march to confront the preachers. The preacher in the “Trust Jesus” t-shirt tried to block the initial shoving with his Bible.

Both preachers attempted to retreat from conflict.

A short man knocked down the preacher holding the sign, taking it away from him as the heavy-set man sucker punched the preacher in the head.

The short man showed no mercy as he kicked the now-down preacher in the ribs.

This sounds pretty damning, and the violence is, again, reprehensible. However, if you watch the video you will see a number of salient points that are not mentioned in the written account:

1. The incident happened at a gay pride rally.

2. The preachers were repeatedly warned verbally and in no uncertain terms that their presence was not welcome, and were advised, again in no uncertain terms, that they should leave.

3. The inciting incident was not an attack on the preachers themselves, but the theft of one of their signs. You can watch the video and judge for yourself who was attacking who, but the fact is that for most of the fracas, the preacher being "attacked" is on top of the putative "attacker."

So again, even if one grants that the preachers were attacked, they were not attacked because they were Christians, they were attacked because they were behaving like assholes. Preaching that homosexuality is a sin at a gay pride rally is like walking into a church and preaching against God. It's just rude. Of course rudeness does not merit violence, but it does forfeit you the moral high ground.

Two down, twelve to go. This is going to be a long slog, but I really want to definitively debunk this idea that Christians are the victims.

The resignation of Mozilla's CEO amid outrage that he supported an anti-gay marriage campaign is prompting concerns about how Silicon Valley's strongly liberal culture might quash the very openness that is at the region's foundation.

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich stepped down Thursday as CEO, just days after his appointment. He left the nonprofit maker of the Firefox browser after furious attacks, largely on Twitter, over his $1,000 contribution to support of a now-overturned 2008 gay-marriage ban in California.

As with the case of the UCSB professor's victims, we have no evidence that Brendan Eich is a Christian. Just as it is possible for a non-Christian to oppose abortion rights, it is also possible for a non-Christian to oppose marriage equality. I myself wrote some harsh criticism of Brendan Eich and I have no idea if he's a Christian or not. What I do know (because Brendan's actions provide conclusive evidence) is that he is an unrepentant bigot. Personally, I have no problem with bigots being harassed for their bigotry. I am not a moral relativist. Bigotry is evil because it retards the advancement of ideas. But that is another discussion.

Protests against Proposition 8 supporters in California took place starting in November 2008. These included prominent protests against the Roman Catholic church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which collaboratively campaigned in favor of California's Proposition 8 through volunteer and financial support for the measure.[1] The proposition was a voter referendum that amended the state constitution to recognize marriage only as being between one man and one woman, thus banning same-sex marriage, which was legal in the state following a May 2008 California Supreme Court case.

Same story, except that these protests are not harassment of any sort. They are entirely legitimate political responses to political action. They are a response to bigots who made themselves fair game by initiating political action to deprive other people of their rights. That these particular bigots happen to be Mormon has nothing to do with the protests (except insofar as their Mormonism almost certainly motivated their bigotry).

American fast-food chain Chick-fil-A was the focus of controversy following a series of public comments made in June 2012 by chief operating officer Dan Cathy opposing same-sex marriage. This followed reports that Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, the S. Truett Cathy-family-operated WinShape Foundation, had made millions in donations to political organizations which oppose LGBT rights. LGBT rights activists called for protests and boycotts of the chain, while counter-protestors rallied in support by eating at the restaurants. National political figures both for and against the actions spoke out and some business partners severed ties with the chain.

Chick-fil-A released a statement in July 2012 stating, "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

Are you beginning to notice a pattern here? Do I even need to explain this one? Again, these protests were political, peaceful, and their motives had nothing to do with the subject of their protests being Christian and everything to do with their being politically active bigots.

According the Archdiocese for Military Services, GS and contract priests (who are paid by the federal government as independent contractors in places where there aren’t enough active-duty priests to meet the needs of Catholics in military service) are being forbidden from celebrating Mass, even on a volunteer basis.

If they violate this restriction, they face possible arrest. FOR CELEBRATING MASS.

OK, this sounds more promising. Being arrested for celebrating mass certainly sounds like a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. But again, there is a salient fact that is not evident from these excerpts: this incident occurred during the government shutdown of October 2013. In fact, Publius edited the headline to obscure this fact. The original headline was "MILITARY PRIESTS FACE ARREST FOR CELEBRATING MASS IN DEFIANCE OF SHUTDOWN" (caps in original). So again, the priests were not facing arrest because they were Christian, they were facing arrest because they were breaking the law. During the shutdown (which, again, it is worth noting was precipitated by the intransigence of Congressional Republicans), many contractors were furloughed and hence barred from government facilities. But were Christians specifically singled out? Publius's next example is closely related:

The Obama administration is continuing to prohibit approximately 50 Catholic priests from saying Mass and administering other sacraments at U.S. military facilities around the world, according to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services.

Father Ray Leonard, who is one of these priests, and who serves as the Catholic chaplain at Navel Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia, filed suit Monday against the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the Department of the Navy and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. His suit—joined by Navy veteran Fred Naylor, who is a member of the Catholic congregation at Kings Bay--alleges that the administration is violating his and his congregation’s First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly.

DOD has been prohibiting Father Leonard and the other Catholic priests from administering the sacraments and providing other services to their congregations even though two weeks ago Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law that instructed DOD to maintain on the job and keep paying contract employees who were supporting the troops.

DOD took this action because Hagel determined--after consulting with Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department--that civilian Catholic priests, working under contract as chaplains, did not, among other things, “contribute to the morale” and “well-being” of service personnel.

"The Department of Defense consulted closely with the Department of Justice, which expressed its view that the law does not permit a blanket recall of all civilians," Hagel said in an Oct. 5 memorandum. "Under our current reading of the law, the standard of 'support to members of the Armed Forces' requires a focus on those employees whose responsibilities contribute to the morale, well-being, capabilities, and readiness of covered military members during the lapse of appropriations."

Among the specific examples Hagel provided of civilian contractors whom he believes meet this standard are those working in secular "Family Support Programs and Activities," "Behavorial Health and Suicide Prevention Programs" and "Health Care Activities and Providers"--but not priests.

Wow, that really does sound bad. But if you actually look at the Oct. 5 memorandum you will find that things are not exactly as they are portrayed in the CNS News account. For one thing, the words "Catholic", "Christian" and "priest" do not appear in that memo. What is really going on here, as the memo makes clear, is that Congress shut down the government and left it up to the executive branch in general, and the DoD in particular in this case, to figure out how to handle the resulting mess. The DoD prioritized what it considered to be essential services (like supply chain management -- i.e. providing soldiers with food) and religious services didn't make the cut. Even if you allow the English language to be sufficiently mangled as to allow the decision to prioritize food over organized religious services to be characterized as "harassment", this incident is still in no way harassment of Christians. All religious services were suspended, not just Christian ones. It's just that the Christians were the only ones who whined about it.

Several dozen U.S. Army active duty and reserve troops were told last week that the American Family Association, a well-respected Christian ministry, should be classified as a domestic hate group because the group advocates for traditional family values.

You should be able to guess that this account is stilted merely by the fact that the source is Fox News. First, it was not "The U.S. Army", it was a single instructor at a single briefing. And second, it is in fact defensible to call the American Family Association a hate group because they do in fact promulgate hateful ideas about gays.

A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.

Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties this week as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.

Yes, I know. It's starting to get a little painful, isn't it? Like Brendan Eich, this teacher was not fired for being a Christian, this teacher was fired for being a bigot.

The shocking stories of religious hostility in our nation’s military continue, and now, Liberty Institute represents Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, a 19-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force who was relieved of his duties because of his faith and moral convictions.

Senior Master Sergeant Monk, who served as a First Sergeant at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, recently returned from deployment and found he had a new commander who was an open lesbian.

“In one of our first meetings, she was talking about her promotion and she mentioned something about a benediction,” Monk told Fox News. “She said she wanted a chaplain but objected to one particular chaplain that she called a ‘bigot’ because he preached that homosexuality is a sin.”

“She then said, ‘I don’t know what kind of people actually believe that kind of crap,’” Monk continued. “I knew I was going to have a rough time in this unit and I would have to be very careful about what I said.”

Issues arose when Monk was asked to advise his commander on a disciplinary matter involving an Air Force instructor who was accused of making objectionable comments about gay marriage. After a thorough investigation, Monk determined the instructor meant no harm by his comments, and suggested that his commander could use the incident as a way to teach about tolerance and diversity.

Monk, a devout evangelical Christian, says he was told that he wasn’t on the same page as the commander, and that if he didn’t get on the same page, they would find another place for him to work.

Later, the commander ordered Monk to answer the question of whether people who object to gay marriage are discriminating. Monk responded that he could not answer the way his commander wanted and feared an honest response would put him in legal trouble.

At that point, Monk was relieved of his duties.

It's hard to sort out exactly what happened in this case, but whatever it was it had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with homophobia. This is not to say that Monk's dismissal was appropriate. People have a Constitutional right to be hold bigoted views, and a case might be made that homophobic bigots are being subject to unfair harassment. But the evidence for harassment targeted at Christians is zero. Zip. Nada.

Discrimination against atheists in the United States occurs in legal, personal, social, and professional contexts. Some American atheists compare their situation to the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, LGBT communities, and women.[42][43][44][45] "Americans still feel it's acceptable to discriminate against atheists in ways considered beyond the pale for other groups," asserted Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association.[46] However, other atheists reject these comparisons, arguing that while atheists may face disapproval they have not faced significant oppression or discrimination.[47][48]

In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness...

Respondents to a survey were less likely to support a kidney transplant for hypothetical atheists and agnostics needing it, than for Christian patients with similar medical needs.[59]

Few politicians have been willing to identify as non-theists, since such revelations have been considered "political suicide".[64][65] In a landmark move, California Representative Pete Stark came out in 2007 as the first openly nontheistic member of Congress.[46] In 2009, City Councilman Cecil Bothwell of Asheville, North Carolina was called "unworthy of his seat" because of his open atheism.[66] Several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a qualified atheist for president.[67][68] A 2006 study found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did "not at all agree with my vision of American society", and that 48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African-Americans and homosexuals.[69] Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour, extreme materialism, and elitism.[70] Atheists and atheist organizations have alleged discrimination against atheists in the military,[71][72][73][74][75][76] and recently, with the development of the Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, atheists have alleged institutionalized discrimination.[77][78] In several child custody court rulings, atheist parents have been discriminated against, either directly or indirectly. As child custody laws in the United States are often based on the "best interests of the child" principle, they leave family court judges ample room to consider a parent’s ideology when settling a custody case. Atheism, lack of religious observation and regular church attendance, and the inability to prove one's willingness and capacity to attend to religion with his children, have been used to deny custody to non-religious parents.[79][80]

The constitutions of ... seven US states ban atheists from holding public office.

And here we come to the real nub of the matter. Not only is it false that Christians are systematically discriminated against, in fact the exact opposite is true. Christians are not the discriminatees, they are the discriminators. They have in fact become so accustomed to their position of power and hegemony in American society that they perceive that power and hegemony as a basic right, as the natural order of things.

Well, it isn't. Notwithstanding that the vast majority of Americans self-identify as Christians, the United States is not a Christian nation. It never was, and God willing it never will be. It is a secular nation, areligious (but obviously not irreligious). It welcomes Christians and non-Christians of all stripes. It welcomes Catholics and Krishnas, Baptists and Buddhists, Methodists and Muslims, believers and non-believers.

What it does not welcome so much is intolerance. If you believe that God wants you to impose (your view of) His will on others, then you do indeed have a problem, because the price of being free to worship as you see fit is to leave others free to do the same (or not) as they see fit. So if you really feel persecuted here because you can't stand letting other people enjoy the same freedoms you possess, you might want to consider moving to, say, Cameroon. We won't stop you.

19 comments:

The bulk of your response to Publicus appears to be predicated upon two claims:

1. Your conception of bigotry as normative, with true Christianity as ¬bigotry.2. It is ok to suspend religious services in the military during budgetary crisis.

As to #1, I note that being intolerant of 'intolerant' people requires either (1) self-hatred, or (2) elimination of all other 'intolerant' people. An alternative would be to accept a normative standard and I see you did provide one—how that doesn't allow for human experimentation (a convenient reductio ad absurdum) is a bit of an enigma to me though. Furthermore, your #1 seems predicated on the idea that I cannot see another person's beliefs/actions as sinful and yet still treat him/her with full dignity. I would be interested in discussing this, or whatever it is you actually believe if I have guessed wrongly.

As to #2, I would want to know whether the relevant religious leaders were willing to absorb all of the costs of continuing religious services, including infrastructure costs (e.g. electricity). It strikes me that Catholics in the US would probably have been willing to defray these costs, and the refusal to give them this opportunity would be a violation of religious freedom.

———

In general, I do agree that Christians are scarcely persecuted in any meaningful sense of the term, if one looks at persecution throughout the ages. Furthermore, I am told that the evidence supports Christianity thriving the more it is persecuted. This makes sense to me: if you start persecuting people for their beliefs, they will shed the ones that they don't think are defensible, thus purifying their beliefs. What is believed to be true becomes more clear.

Much more important than any of the above is the loss of Sabbath-time in the United States, putting us in the realm of "total" work as described by Josef Pieper in Leisure: The Basis of Culture. I was turned onto this idea by U. Wash School of Information prof. David Levy, by his Google Tech Talk No Time To Think (pdf). Such an environment puts us at the mercy of society, of advertisement, of slogans, of propaganda as defined by Jacques Ellul in Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. If Christians were to stand against this, they might actually get persecuted—including by those who call themselves 'Christian'.

> Your conception of bigotry as normative, with true Christianity as ¬bigotry.

No. I'm simply applying the dictionary definition of bigotry: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." I'm not making any value judgements about whether or not bigotry is good or bad (at least not here -- I do believe that bigotry is bad, but that's a separate discussion). I'm merely pointing out that Publus's data points don't support the theory that in the U.S. people suffer persecution because they are Christians. In fact, they don't even suffer persecution because they are bigots. They suffer from persecution (to the extent that they do) only when they take political action based on their bigotry, at which point they become fair game IMHO.

> I cannot see another person's beliefs/actions as sinful and yet still treat him/her with full dignity.

Of course you can do that, and if you do then we have no quarrel. You are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is sinful. You are even free to try to convince gays that homosexuality is sinful. Publish op-eds to your heart's content. Stand on the street corner with signs. I will defend to the death you right to be a bigot, and even to advertise the fact that you are a bigot. What I won't defend is if you try to ram your views down other people's throats by, for example, demonstrating *at a gay pride rally* or writing your bigotry into law.

> It is ok to suspend religious services in the military during budgetary crisis.

I didn't say it was OK, all I said is that it was defensible. Right or wrong, the salient point is that there is no evidence that the decision was made on the basis of animus towards Christians.

> I would want to know whether the relevant religious leaders were willing to absorb all of the costs of continuing religious services, including infrastructure costs (e.g. electricity).

Doesn't matter. The government couldn't accept these payments because it would then be showing favoritism to those faiths that could afford to pay the costs. There's a *reason* that we fund the government with tax money rather than running it as a charity.

> Bowdoin

Hadn't heard of that. That does seem to me to be possibly crossing the line, but I'd have to look into it more. Student groups present some very tricky ethical corner cases.

> If Christians were to stand against this, they might actually get persecuted—including by those who call themselves 'Christian'.

Really? I don't see anyone objecting to the fact that Hobby Lobby closes on Sunday.

Of course, if Christians tried to re-instate blue laws they would be met with fierce opposition -- as well they should. You are free to believe what you want. You are not free to impose your beliefs on others. This should not be such a difficult concept to grasp.

> No. I'm simply applying the dictionary definition of bigotry: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

So the person who objects to bigotry, by showing intolerance towards bigots, is himself a bigot. This doesn't make any sense. Russell's Paradox lurks here.

> What I won't defend is if you try to ram your views down other people's throats by, for example, demonstrating *at a gay pride rally* or writing your bigotry into law.

Wait, why exactly ought a rally for a position be immune from counter-protesting?

> Doesn't matter. The government couldn't accept these payments because it would then be showing favoritism to those faiths that could afford to pay the costs.

IANAL, but I have a hard time seeing this reasoning hold up. I'd need to have a lawyer's knowledge of precedent in this area to really carry this conversation, though.

> Really? I don't see anyone objecting to the fact that Hobby Lobby closes on Sunday.

Nope, but I have seen Christians get persecuted for e.g. rejecting the establishment of a closed, secretive committee for nominating leaders in a Christian organization, over and against a fully public, everyone-votes system. I don't understand why you thought being closed on Sundays has anything to do with this topic.

> You are not free to impose your beliefs on others.

How can you not see this as you imposing your belief (that "You are not free to impose your beliefs on others.") on others?

It does indeed. I have even coined an aphorism that I call Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. Of course, Ron's First Law must be wrong because it is itself an extreme position.

But this is not a philosophy class, this is real life, and in real life it's easy to avoid Russell's paradox: you simply ignore it. Yes, I freely admit to being a bigot according to the strict dictionary definition. I am intolerant of intolerance. I wear this particular brand of bigotry with pride. (I am also intolerant of other things of which I am not so proud. We are all sinners.)

> Wait, why exactly ought a rally for a position be immune from counter-protesting?

I didn't say it should be immune, I just said I wouldn't defend it. I choose not to defend your right to be a jerk even as I acknowledge that you do indeed have that right.

BTW, have you ever been to a gay pride event? They are really much more of a cultural event than a political rally.

> Nope, but I have seen Christians get persecuted for e.g. rejecting the establishment of a closed, secretive committee for nominating leaders in a Christian organization, over and against a fully public, everyone-votes system.

I must confess I'm lost here. I thought we were talking about the Sabbath:

"Much more important than any of the above is the loss of Sabbath-time in the United States"

> How can you not see this as you imposing your belief (that "You are not free to impose your beliefs on others.") on others?

How exactly am I imposing that belief on you? Am I holding a gun to your head? Am I threatening your livelihood? Am I doing anything other than making an argument and presenting evidence?

Perhaps it would help if I phrased it differently: The only way to maintain a free society is for people to refrain as much as possible from imposing their beliefs on others. Personally, I like living in a free society, so I will work as hard as possible to maintain the conditions that are necessary for the preservation of such a society, which obviously includes making every effort to prevent people from imposing their beliefs on others. But "making every effort" is not the same as "imposing".

BTW, legalizing gay marriage is not "imposing" anyone's view on anyone. The opposite of prohibition is not permission, it is requirement. The opposite of forbidding gay marriage is not allowing gay marriage, it is *requiring* gay marriage (i.e. forbidding straight marriage). The opposite of forbidding abortion is not permitting abortion, it is requiring abortion. *Those* are the extreme positions on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Literally *no one* supports them, which tilts the political playing field radically to the right.

> It does indeed. I have even coined an aphorism that I call Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. Of course, Ron's First Law must be wrong because it is itself an extreme position.

How do you distinguish between raw irrationalism (holding to principles only when convenient) and the claim that no system of law can be perfect? As far as I can tell, one needs some sort of "spirit" behind the law, a "spirit" of which the law is an approximation. Without something like this, contradiction is perfectly acceptable, and if that is the case, all things can be proven true or false from that contradiction. The result is a system of rule by man, not by law. History has shown how that turns out.

> BTW, have you ever been to a gay pride event?

Nope, even though I moved to SF 16 months ago. I have a problem with pride qua pride, and prefer to, instead, affirm the dignity of human beings qua human beings.

> I must confess I'm lost here. I thought we were talking about the Sabbath:

My apologies; I didn't consider "being closed on Sundays" as a reason for persecution; instead, I was talking about promoting the result of Sabbath-time as something that would be persecution-worthy. Peter Berger and Jacques Ellul, both sociologists, argue for the subversiveness which true Christianity can have with respect to established culture. One thing that Sabbath-time (which can happen on weekdays) permits is the opportunity to really question the way things are, and consider that there might be a better way—a way closer to God. Josef Pieper uses something like the phrase "pierce the current philosophical dome". Such subversion threatens all static power structures, including religious ones, if not especially religious ones. One way to keep people from really thinking, from really taking Sabbath-time, is to keep them (a) busy; (b) entertained.

> How exactly am I imposing that belief on you?

You are advocating for a state of affairs to become legal reality, are you not? You later say "But "making every effort" is not the same as "imposing"."—I don't understand how this can be true. Could you explicate some differences between "making every effort' and "imposing"?

> Perhaps it would help if I phrased it differently: The only way to maintain a free society is for people to refrain as much as possible from imposing their beliefs on others.

A test particle might be useful, here. The Amish impose their beliefs on each other, with the exception of Rumspringa, during which adolescents leave their communities, experience the outside world, and then choose whether to stay there, or return to the Amish community. Is this an acceptable situation, or would you rather the Amish be prevented from exerting so much control over each other, and from e.g. indoctrinating their children?

> How do you distinguish between raw irrationalism (holding to principles only when convenient) and the claim that no system of law can be perfect?

How do I *distinguish* between them? One is a mental state and the other is a factual claim. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant. (I honestly have no idea what you meant.)

> As far as I can tell, one needs some sort of "spirit" behind the law

Why? Why is it not enough to simply have a quality metric?

> Without something like this, contradiction is perfectly acceptable

No, it isn't, because as you yourself point out:

> if that is the case, all things can be proven true or false from that

And that results in bad outcomes by just about anyone's quality metric.

BTW, our choice of quality metric is not arbitrary. We are constrained by evolution to what we can sincerely choose to believe is good.

> I moved to SF 16 months ago.

Would love to get together for coffee some time. I am thoroughly enjoying our conversations. (Thanks for all the comments BTW! You and Publius are really keeping me on my toes.)

> You are advocating for a state of affairs to become legal reality, are you not?

Yes, but I am advocating as a citizen of a democracy, not as a dictator. And I'm doing it by writing in my own blog, not by showing up to church barbecues with a sign saying "Christians are homophobic bigots". If I had dictatorial powers things would be different, just as if I were holding a gun to your head things would be different. But I don't and I'm not so they aren't. I will only prevail if I am able to convince enough of my fellow citizens that the ideas I'm advancing have merit.

> You later say "But "making every effort" is not the same as "imposing"."—I don't understand how this can be true. Could you explicate some differences between "making every effort' and "imposing"?

"Making every effort" means doing what I can as a citizen within the bounds of the law. "Imposing" means using some means of force to coerce you into actions you would not otherwise take. As long as gay marriage is illegal, gay people are forcibly coerced into not marrying the people they love by the force of the state. But the opposite of prohibition is not permission, it's requirement. The opposite of forbidding gay marriage is not permitting gay marriage, it's permitting *only* gay marriage and forbidding straight marriage (a position that I would also strenuously oppose if it were being seriously advanced by anyone). If gay marriage is allowed, no one is forced to do anything they do not choose to do of their own free will.

> Is this an acceptable situation, or would you rather the Amish be prevented from exerting so much control over each other, and from e.g. indoctrinating their children?

One of the tests by which coercion can be assessed is whether or not one can opt out. Hence, legalizing gay marriage is not coercion because no one is required to marry. (Forbidding gay marriage is obviously coercion.) AFAIK, no one is forced to remain in an Amish community against their will, so I'm fine with them conducting their internal business as they see fit.

Children are a more difficult matter. Parents in general should be given very broad latitude in how they raise their kids, but there have to be some limits. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists, for example, are not allowed to deny their kids life-saving medical treatment despite the fact that it runs against their religious beliefs. And obviously you have to keep them fed, clothed and housed, and you're not allowed to abuse them. As far as I know, nothing like that happens in Amish communities.

So while I would personally prefer that the Amish not indoctrinate their kids into beliefs that I believe to be false, I would not try to impose my desire on them by force of law. (Indeed, I would actively oppose any such law based on what I currently know.)

It is irrational to hold to a principle only when it is convenient, only when it leads to results you like. This is called rationalization, not rationality. You aren't actually adhering to a principle in this case. The only exception I can see is when the principle is supposed to be an approximation of a mutually-agreed-upon concept; see next paragraph.

> Why? Why is it not enough to simply have a quality metric?

What is an example of a "quality metric" that does not fall prey to Campbell's Law? What I'm getting at is that most people realize that there can be unjust laws. What this means is that they have some conception of Justice, of which particular laws can be good or bad approximations. It becomes a problem when this conception of Justice merely means "I want to have nice things, regardless of who else might go without". Can you even have a "quality metric" without some conception of Justice? It is that conception I call "spirit of the law".

> BTW, our choice of quality metric is not arbitrary. We are constrained by evolution to what we can sincerely choose to believe is good.

What meaningful constraints, relevant to this discussion, does 'evolution' provide?

> Would love to get together for coffee some time.

Sure! labreuer@gmail.com I'd also love to pick your brains about the quantum physics work you've done, especially because you're not a physicist. I found your Google Tech Talk fascinating.

> Yes, but I am advocating as a citizen of a democracy, not as a dictator. [...] I will only prevail if I am able to convince enough of my fellow citizens that the ideas I'm advancing have merit.

Meh, this just seems like a weaker version of 'imposing', and maybe just a different version. Your method merely takes more time for the effects to trickle from 'mere' ideas to very concrete reality. After all, why even talk about this stuff if you do not want to ultimately have it impact reality? Note that the majority agreeing with you probably doesn't mean anything; if moral realism obtains, then argumentum ad populism applies to moral reasoning.

> As long as gay marriage is illegal, gay people are forcibly coerced into not marrying the people they love by the force of the state.

I'm not sure this is a good example; I think forcing e.g. religious organizations to hire gays would be a better one. (I don't know if this is done anywhere.) The question would be: what is it that differentiates a religious organization from a public company, such that discrimination is allowed in one scenario and not the other? After all, voluntary organizations are not allowed to murder or steal; why are they allowed to discriminate? Oh, now I recall the specific example: at least in some states in the US, Catholic adoption agencies were forced to provide adoptions to gay couples; this kind of discrimination was outlawed.

> AFAIK, no one is forced to remain in an Amish community against their will, so I'm fine with them conducting their internal business as they see fit.

This starts getting interesting. What makes business 'internal', and thus immune from e.g. state laws for antidiscrimination? What I'm getting at here is what you think is 'internal' or 'private', vs. 'public'. This seems to define the extent to which mediating structures can meaningfully exist.

I'm not sure how relevant it is to the current discussion. It was just an offhand comment.

> a weaker version of 'imposing'

Well, imposing is a continuum, not a dichotomy. If I threaten you with my fists that is different than if I threaten you with a gun, which is in turn different than if I threaten you with a nuclear weapon. So "weaker" is in fact the whole point.

> I think forcing e.g. religious organizations to hire gays would be a better one.

> Campbell's law only applies to quantitative metrics. Quality metrics can be, well, qualitative. Freedom, for example, is very hard to measure.

I guess I'm just not sure how this tangent has avoided the problem that if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant, you ought to be intolerant of yourself. Your suggestion to "just ignore it" seems very bad: wiping inconsistencies under the rug seems very bad. I'm not sure how talk of 'Freedom'—there is no single definition—really helps resolve the inconsistency. The only conclusion I can draw is that you aren't being intolerant of the intolerant—you're doing something else. What precisely that is, I'm not sure.

P.S. The use of 'metric' made me think 'quantitative'. Too much mathematics on the brain, perhaps.

> Evolution is what produces our core moral intuitions.

I'm reminded of Richard Dawkins talking about how brutal evolution is, and how we ought to rebel against our "selfish genes". I do think it's important to understand the evolution of pretty much everything—including ideas. A lot of software would be easier to understand if there were nice visualizations of its evolution! I started Paul E. Griffiths' What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories, in which he claimed that we didn't properly separate out emotions into natural kinds, making it very hard to generalize about them. His solution? Work with [evolutionary] homology instead of functionalism.

I would even say that Israel's conception of YHWH probably evolved over time. If it is the case that true justice/mercy/love are actually infinitely complex concepts, it makes sense that one would have to approach them via successive approximation. So I do see this concept all over, guided and seemingly unguided. But I also see the concept brought up a lot when it doesn't really seem to add anything to the conversation. To be blunt and exaggerate, sometimes it seems like a security blanket. The trick is, under moral realism, the evolution of morality isn't guaranteed to help in any way, unless there is a guiding intelligence or some law of which I am currently unaware.

> > What makes business 'internal'> Mutual consent, probably. But I haven't really given it a whole lot of thought. Is anyone seriously worried about the Amish?

I'm actually thinking in terms of precedent: if the Amish ought to be allowed to do what they're currently allowed to do, what else ought to be allowed under the same legal precedent? For example, when does the cost of leaving an ideological community become so high that the community is seen as de facto coercing a person to stay there?

> if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant, you ought to be intolerant of yourself.

Maybe I am :-)

The reason it's not a contradiction is that tolerance is a continuum, not a dichotomy. I'm actually rather tolerant of intolerance. I'm not advocating making bigotry a capital crime. If you really wanted to model it mathematically you'd end up with a something like a differential equation which has a numerical solution which would correspond to the degree of intolerance that is acceptable to apply to intolerance itself. Or maybe the solution would oscillate, I have no idea.

If you really want to dive into this sort of thing you should read David Deutsch's new book, "The Beginning of Infinity." It's a terrible title (IMO) but a really good book. He goes into great detail about how the scientific method can be applied to politics and other social issues.

> when does the cost of leaving an ideological community become so high that the community is seen as de facto coercing a person to stay there?

Good question. I don't know. But I'd point to the Scientologists as an example of a group that has probably crossed the line.

Many Muslims believe that apostasy should be a capital crime. That *definitely* crosses the line.

> The reason it's not a contradiction is that tolerance is a continuum, not a dichotomy.

I'm still not sure this helps. It seems that instead of being intolerant of intolerance, what you're really doing is being intolerant of those who violate some ideal. But then you no longer are at the seemingly "nice" spot of being "tolerant"; you are ideal-driven, just like everyone else. I don't see anything bad about this, what I'm mostly criticizing is the idea that anyone is actually 100% tolerant. It's a rhetorically powerful idea which happens to be empty.

> If you really want to dive into this sort of thing you should read David Deutsch's new book, "The Beginning of Infinity." It's a terrible title (IMO) but a really good book. He goes into great detail about how the scientific method can be applied to politics and other social issues.

I have it, started it, but didn't get very far. I just read the bits on apportionment of state representatives, which was neat. Have you read any F.A. Hayek? I'm currently reading his Studies on the Abuse and Decline of Reason, in which he criticizes "economic man" and the many other models of person which were used during his time. Some of his criticisms are vindicated by dual practitioner/academician Donald E. Polkinghorne in Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences (3-page Google books preface). I'm not saying we shouldn't use science, I'm just saying that if we start with bad presuppositions (like behaviorism), it won't be all that useful in the ways we really need.

Also, have you read Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society or his Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes? Ellul is a big critic of what he calls technique, which also goes by the name 'instrumental reason' by thinkers such as Charles Taylor (e.g. in The Malaise of Modernity). At issue is too much use of science, which is inherently valueless. It can easily take over thought like a cancer, driving out any conception of deep human thriving and replacing it with e.g. consumerism.

> Good question. I don't know. But I'd point to the Scientologists as an example of a group that has probably crossed the line.

So it seems to me that it would be good to work on a model of discriminatory voluntary societies (to value anything other than a banal version of 'the good', one has to be discriminatory), societies which are allowed to test out ideas over long periods of time, but which are not able to do the bad things generally identified with the concept of 'tradition'. I'm reminded of the following bit from Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind:

"This reversal of the founding intention with respect to minorities is most striking. For the Founders, minorities are in general bad things, mostly identical to factions, selfish groups who have no concern as such for the common good. Unlike older political thinkers, they entertained no hopes of suppressing factions and educating a united or homogenous citizenry. Instead they constructed an elaborate machinery to continua factions in such a way that they would cancel one another and allow for the pursuit of the common good. […] In twentieth-century social science, however, the common good disappears and along with it the negative view of minorities. The very idea of majority—now understood to be selfish interest—is done away with in order to protect the minorities." (31)

If there were always an "escape hatch" for tradition, then it seems that people could effectively vote with their feet. It would still be difficult to leave certain societies—Peter Berger talks about the alienation this produces in e.g. A Far Glory—but I claim there is benefit in allowing particular conceptions of 'the good' to be tested over long periods of time. Otherwise, we essentially put a glass ceiling over our ability to research 'the good'.

> what I'm mostly criticizing is the idea that anyone is actually 100% tolerant

I never claimed to be 100% tolerant. I never even held up 100% tolerance as an ideal.

> you are ideal-driven, just like everyone else

Yes, of course. I've even told you what my ideals are (science, Popperian epistemology, idea-ism). So?

> Have you read any F.A. Hayek?

No. A little bit of Murray Rothbard was about as much Austrian economics as I could stomach.

> At issue is too much use of science, which is inherently valueless.

Science is not valueless. It values truth as determined by evidence and reason.

> It can easily take over thought like a cancer, driving out any conception of deep human thriving and replacing it with e.g. consumerism.

Religion can do exactly the same thing. Consumerism has nothing to do with science, it has to do with some people trying to manipulate the behavior of other people towards (what they perceive as) their own benefit. People -- and many other life forms -- have been doing that for millions of years.

> I claim there is benefit in allowing particular conceptions of 'the good' to be tested over long periods of time.

I think I overreacted and/or conflated you with some other folks I was talking to online with my bits about "100% tolerant" and "ideal-driven"; I apologize. Sometimes I get going and I don't stop. :-/

I did want to give you a bit more info of where I was going with voluntary societies that are allowed to be discriminatory in certain ways. The motivation comes from reasoning like the following, from Alasdair MacIntyre's Whose Justice? Which Rationality?:

"In respect of the goods of excellence those who administer and enforce justice will themselves be required to be just; for if they did not have a regard for justice, it could only be because they had failed to understand how the rules of justice function in relation to the goods to which they had given their allegiance and so they would be incompetent in evaluating merit and desert. Indeed, the administration of the rules of justice will be involved in the relationships of master to apprentice within any of the forms of activity in which excellence is the goal, since just punishment in the context of the justice of desert has a primarily educational function. By contrast, the most important function of punishment in a justice defined in terms of the goods of effectiveness is deterrence, and what is required of those who administer the rules of justice is that they are effective in deterring injustice. For this they need both to be skilled in applying the relevant stock of true generalizations about what types of cause have deterrent effects and to have a strong interest in maintaining and in themselves observing the rules of injustice, an interest which may be secured by the institutionalized provision of benefits outweighing those to be achieved by the maladministration of justice. But it can be true of them, as it cannot be true of those who are well qualified to administer the justice of desert, that were they not to have such an interest, they would not be just. Unsurprisingly, therefore the question "Who would rule?" has a very different answer in respect of the goods of effectiveness from that which it has in respect of those of excellence. For the adherents of each have to conceive of the point and purpose of politics and the polis in a very different way. Those who subordinate the goods of excellence to those of effectiveness will, if they are consistent, understand politics as that arena in which each citizen seeks to achieve as far as possible what he or she wants within the constraints imposed by the various forms of political order, and the answer to the question "Who should rule?" will be "Whoever has both the skills and the interest to maintain or to promote each type of order." Which type of order someone promotes will of course depend on his or her own interests. Politics as a theoretical study will from this point of view be primarily concerned with how far rival interests can be promoted and yet also reconciled and continued within a single order. By contrast, for those whose fundamental allegiance lies with the goods of excellence politics as a theoretical study will primarily be concerned with how a regard for justice relevantly conceived can be promoted so as to increase a shared understanding of and allegiance to the goods of the polis and only secondarily with conflicts of interest, especially insofar as they may be destructive of movement toward such a shared understanding and allegiance." (38-39)

It's really dense, but his point here is that there are two radically different ways to go about structuring a society:

1. Based on the pragmatic. (individual interests reign)2. Based on the excellent. (the common good reigns)

I have no idea what the word "excellent" could possibly mean here. (See above about translating MacIntyre into English.)

You really need to read The Fabric of Reality chapter 7. The salient idea for the matter at hand is that languages are theories, and when you abuse the language the way MacIntyre does the result is invariably a bad theory.

Now, I do understand the distinction between "individual interests" and "the common good" and we can have a discussion about that if you like. For now I'll just make two brief observations:

1. The fundamental problem is that different people have different quality metrics, so how do you decide what is "the common good"? And there's also the problem that what people think is good for them might not be, c.f. heroin addicts who think heroin is good for them.

2. Individual interests and the common good are not necessarily a dichotomy, and different quality metrics can be a solution as much as they can be a problem. For example, the fact that different people have different quality metrics is the foundation for the creation of wealth through trade. If person A has asset X and person B has asset Y, and A values Y higher than X and B values X higher than Y then A and B can exchange X and Y and according to *both* of their (fundamentally incompatible) quality metrics create wealth with essentially zero effort. Trade is white magic.

I'll do it first by asking some questions. Have you seen Alan Kay's 1997 OOPSLA talk The computer revolution hasn't happened yet? I ask because it is a wonderful example of pragmatism winning out over true technical excellence in the realm of software—something with which we are both intimately familiar.

Another way to get at the issue is to look at what happens to corporate decision-making when what matters most is next quarter's profits. This has bled into science funding as well, requiring scientists to lie on their grant applications on what their research will do because hey, everybody does it. Neil deGrasse Tyson has lamented the paucity of funding for basic research; I am convinced this comes from "next quarter's profits"-mentality. This is a mentality which does not care about excellence, but pragmatics instead—the almighty dollar.

Now, I'm sure we both know the tension between doing a good job as judged by standards of excellent software design, and actually shipping a product. Sacrifices have to be made—you cannot maximize all three of { quality, cost, time }. What we need to look at is what happens in aggregate, with every company and even many individuals in companies making these decisions. I think Alan Kay's presentation is a good indicator: what will make you lots of money is routinely given priority over what will provide the best foundation for the future.

So, there are two dimensions which are optimized against, by attempting to maximize profits. One is the well-being of other entities who are externalities, who cannot affect a given company except in the long-term. Another is the well-being of an individual company over the long-term. A friend of mine mentored one of NVIDIA's founders, and taught him to always have a "short-term ticket" and "long-term ticket" for every graphics chip feature: build toward excellence in the future but make sure it is economically beneficial today.

A society which focuses on excellence will promote decisions which reduce externalities and promote the long-term health of individual entities within the society. There is a sense of being on the same team as others, and thus you're willing to take risks because you trust them. It seems that such a society will exert unifying forces, both good ones and bad ones. Note that unity does require squashing certain kinds of diversity—the more unity and trust is required, the more discrimination of certain types has to happen.

A society which focuses on pragmatism will have smaller horizons, both in time and as you move away from people just like you. Ultimately it is a fracturing force. It is an enemy to ever-increasing excellence, for money simply does not promote that. It promotes making more money.

Am I making any sense? The big idea here is that the focus on excellence over pragmatism or pragmatism over excellence is like a really high-order derivative, where really small fluctuations in the emphasis have huge long-term impacts.

> You really need to read The Fabric of Reality chapter 7. The salient idea for the matter at hand is that languages are theories, and when you abuse the language the way MacIntyre does the result is invariably a bad theory.

I'm not sure how else one can talk about radically different ways to organize society than to use common language in uncommon ways. I haven't read Fabric, but if you lock down the meanings of words too much, you end up preventing "out of the box" thinking.

> if you lock down the meanings of words too much, you end up preventing "out of the box" thinking.

No, you don't, because you can coin new words. The proper way to introduce a new concept is not to just start playing fast and loose with existing words that have perfectly good meanings that happen to be inadequate to your purposes. Just invent a new term and DEFINE it (c.f. "idea-ism" or "meme").